I have the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 (which is what I think you meant) and I don't think you would be disappointed with the quality of the lens or its sharpness. I would buy the same lens again in a heartbeat. I do not own the Zeiss 21mm but I do own the Zeiss Macro-Planar *T 100mm f/2 and I can tell you the quality and build are superb. My Zeiss lens is also manual focus and I bought it mainly for portraits so focusing is not an issue as the circumstances are usually controllable. There are some intangibles with Zeiss (at least some lenses) with warmth and color that are difficult to quantify but easy to see.

With all that being said, the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 will provide some flexibility the Zeiss prime cannot. It is very good in tight situations and works well indoors and outdoors. The downside of the Nikkor 14-24 is you cannot use the typical screw on filters as the front lens element projects beyond the lens body with its radical curvature. There are some filter solutions but it is awkward, expensive, and cumbersome.

If you typically shoot in the 20mm range the Zeiss would be a good choice. Personally I don't think you can go wrong with Zeiss. It is first quality glass built into a robust body.

Id say wait til you can get your hands on the ZF.2 15mm f2.8 if you really want to own a wide Zeiss. Its the only lens that'll make me sell my 14-24mm....and that'll only buy me half the cost of the Zeiss! lol :]

Beso said:
I have the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 (which is what I think you meant) and I don't think you would be disappointed with the quality of the lens or its sharpness. I would buy the same lens again in a heartbeat. I do not own the Zeiss 21mm but I do own the Zeiss Macro-Planar *T 100mm f/2 and I can tell you the quality and build are superb. My Zeiss lens is also manual focus and I bought it mainly for portraits so focusing is not an issue as the circumstances are usually controllable. There are some intangibles with Zeiss (at least some lenses) with warmth and color that are difficult to quantify but easy to see.

With all that being said, the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 will provide some flexibility the Zeiss prime cannot. It is very good in tight situations and works well indoors and outdoors. The downside of the Nikkor 14-24 is you cannot use the typical screw on filters as the front lens element projects beyond the lens body with its radical curvature. There are some filter solutions but it is awkward, expensive, and cumbersome.

If you typically shoot in the 20mm range the Zeiss would be a good choice. Personally I don't think you can go wrong with Zeiss. It is first quality glass built into a robust body.

Good luck with your choice.

Very well said. That is the reasons why I am still considering between them. Thanks alot for your time & words.

SquamishPhoto said:
Id say wait til you can get your hands on the ZF.2 15mm f2.8 if you really want to own a wide Zeiss. Its the only lens that'll make me sell my 14-24mm....and that'll only buy me half the cost of the Zeiss! lol :]

Yes, I heard alot about that lens too but my budget is limited :). I wish one day I' ll save enough to trade up for it. Thanks for your idea.

Re: the ZF.2 15mm f2.8, our dear friend, (chuckle) Ken Rockwell said, "I suspect it's about as sharp as Nikon's 16-35mm VR". But he stated it was sharper than any of Canon's wide lenses. And maybe this is just the Ren Krockwell run around, but this is a strange statement unless he has a very crisp 16-35mm. My guess is, for $3000 USD this will be a very nice wide lens. Manual focus is only a problem for the very young, who never had to do this on a thousand times a day basis, ha, ha, ha.

When you get yours, Adam, just test it out, then ship it over here for a test in a different climate. This seems fair, right? LOL I really love wide glass, and that 15mm I was looking at mounted on the body... it is a huge lens! But, maybe it is worth the three "large".

I clicked on the story as soon as I saw it. I just recently sold my Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It was without a doubt a pretty good lens but still glad I sold it. That article confirmed some of my minor issues with the lens. Contrast could have been a bit better. Cropping some images brought out some of the shortcomings of the lens. I found it sometimes hard to nail focus - I returned from North Carolina earlier this year with a few shots that were slightly out of focus once I viewed them on my computer screen.

OTOH, the Zeiss is just too much money for me to put into one lens. I do like the design of it though! Will probably get the Nikon 14-24mm as I do like the look of 14mm on FF.

Good article. Give that it was two Primes vs. a Zoom Lens. The 14-24 2.8 performed amazingly...as I knew it would. For its flexibility, features, price, and picture quality, I'm now even more convinced I made the right choice in buying this lens.

I guess I intended to say the Zeiss 15mm would be too much for me to spend on that particular lens. The Zeiss 21mm is actually less expensive than the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. If overall sharpness is the concern, personally, between tweaking in-camera sharpening and applying some post processing detail sharpening the versatility of the N14-24mm seems to be the best deal. If I shot more seascapes than landscapes and architecture then yes, I'd consider a lens that I could easily attach filters to.

I must say though, I do find myself oddly attracted to the thought of owning ONE Zeiss lens. Oh boy, what have you guys done to me?

golf007sd said:
Good article. Give that it was two Primes vs. a Zoom Lens. The 14-24 2.8 performed amazingly...as I knew it would. For its flexibility, features, price, and picture quality, I'm now even more convinced I made the right choice in buying this lens.

Maybe I am lazy, but I always for the ease of having autofocus and being able to zoom. The Zeiss had some center sharpness, but what is up with the vignetting at wide open? I think Nikon does a superb job of being able to shoot their lenses wide open with satisfactory results. I think you made a good choice :) I would own one if I had a FX body.

I have the Zeiss 21/2.8 and it's incredible, sharp right into the corners at F2.8 and focuses within a few inches of the front element. The micro contrast is simply awesome. I picked it over the 14-24 but I suspect I would have been happy with either. The manual focus is a non-issue as you can see quite clearly in the D800E VF what is in and out of focus. I also use the lens distance scale which is very effective for landscape.

golf007sd said:
Good article. Give that it was two Primes vs. a Zoom Lens. The 14-24 2.8 performed amazingly...as I knew it would. For its flexibility, features, price, and picture quality, I'm now even more convinced I made the right choice in buying this lens.

If you actually download the full resolution test shots supplied with that article you will see that the Samyang kills the Nikon for sharpness in the middle at least. The corners of the Nikon are way better however. I'll be buying one of those Samyang 14mm asap.

You just can't go wrong with Zeiss on any camera body. I have never heard or seen anything bad about Zeiss Ikon products. The new advertisement shots from the 15mm ZF .2 look truely outer-worldly! You need to be careful though because the 14-24 is certainly no slouch either and the best wide zoom on the market except for the filter problem obviously. You would get more bang for your buck with the 14-24, but which end of the wide spectrum would you be happy with 14-15 are or 21-24?

The review posted above does show the Zeiss is by far the best wide open. The Nikon edge quality is better when stopped down some. I think the conclusions were if you are a wide open shooter the Zeiss is it! 15mm at $200 per mm....makes me want to say mmmm...

Like many of you, i totally agree that Zeiss produces Outstanding glass...no questions about it. Will I ever get one...who knows maybe I will be lucky enough and run into a fellow photo enthusiast and he/she will let me play with one for a bit. The one thing that does hold me back on their line of lenses is: the entire manual focus business. Nikon AF system on their lenses perform so amazingly on all their bodies that I'm not sure how I would do with a lens that I have to constantly focus myself. I would be very disappointed to miss a shot or even get that shot only to go home and realize that many where out-of-focus. With that said, I'm sure with the right technique one will be proficient at it...much like the many that own Zeiss lenses. I just feel that for my level of photography, the results I'm getting from the 14-24, as well as, all my other Nikon lenses, I'm completely satisfied.

There's no need for AF on Super Wide Angle lenses IMO, unless you have poor eyesight. I have just as much success with MF using my D800E and the Zeiss 21 as I do with a number of AF lenses. If you stop down to F9 (practically the entire universe comes into focus) and you hardly have to touch the focus ring. At F/2.8 it's still sharp and easy to focus manually in the VF visually or the rangefinder LEDs.

The thing that the 14-24 has going for it is that in order to match the range of the 14-24 with Zeiss glass you need both the Zeiss 15 and the Zeiss 21. From that standpoint the 14-24 is a comparative bargain. The 14-24 is my favorite lens, but I'd love to have Zeiss glass. I think my first Zeiss lens will be the 100 f/2 though....